Betty Mould-Iddrisu — Attorney-General
Loading
24th July, 2009
Court Dismisses Kasapa’s Case
A High Court in Accra, on Wednesday dismissed a contempt application filed by the Kasapa Telecom Limited (KTL), against Westec Security Systems Limited (WSSL) and its chief executive, Mr Kwame Sarpong for ordering guards to invade the offices of Kasapa.
The court also awarded cost of GH¢1,000 against Kasapa for failing to establish a prima facie case against the respondent and proving it beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr. Justice Patrick Baayeh, the presiding judge, in the ruling, said the respondents had not breached any order of the circuit court since they entered agreement with Kludjeson International Limited/KTL to provide the latter with security services.
He said respondents were on the premises on the authority of the Kludjeson International Limited/KTL to carry their lawful duties.
Mr. Justice Baayeh said the applicant also failed to establish the guilt of Westec and its chief executive in the purported invasion of KTL offices.
He said ex-parte applications are for emergency purposes to allow an applicant to have restraining orders for a limited time and not forever.
Mr. Justice Baayeh said the ex-parte motion granted the applicant was generally off the mark and that they failed to move for the extension of the restraining orders against the respondents.
The contempt of court applicant brought against Westec and its Chief Executive came about following a supposed invasion of the offices of KTL.
Mr Devine Letsa, counsel for Kasapa Telecom Limited, in his application to the court argued that there was an interim injunction ordered by an Accra Circuit Court in 2001 against the respondents from interfering in the activities of the company.
Mr. Letsa said the actions of the respondents amounted to disobedience of the direct orders of the circuit court, given that over eight years ago, the respondents invaded the Abelenkpe and the Airport offices of Kasapa Limited.
He further indicated that since the suit was still before the Circuit Court and not struck out or withdrawn, it was, by law, valid.
Mr. Letsa noted that the fact that the motion had been filed to extend the interim injunction within 30 days of the initial injunction preserved the restraining order already given by the court.
He said the absence of the pendency of the court process was immaterial, adding that the respondents could not have been at Kasapa’s premises for an innocent purpose but intentionally to interfere in the court process.
Mr Eric Agbolosu, counsel for the respondents, in his affidavit in opposition to the motion, argued that the applicant is by law required to establish a prima facie case against his clients for contempt of court.
He said since 2001, no notice had been served on his clients that the case was still pending before the court, adding that by law at most a year’s notice should have been served by the applicant to the respondents of the pendency of the case.
Mr. Agbolosu also argued that the ex-parte application should not remain in force for more than 10 days, stressing that by law after 30 days, if the interim injunction was not extended then the restraining order fails to exist in law.
The court also awarded cost of GH¢1,000 against Kasapa for failing to establish a prima facie case against the respondent and proving it beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr. Justice Patrick Baayeh, the presiding judge, in the ruling, said the respondents had not breached any order of the circuit court since they entered agreement with Kludjeson International Limited/KTL to provide the latter with security services.
He said respondents were on the premises on the authority of the Kludjeson International Limited/KTL to carry their lawful duties.
Mr. Justice Baayeh said the applicant also failed to establish the guilt of Westec and its chief executive in the purported invasion of KTL offices.
He said ex-parte applications are for emergency purposes to allow an applicant to have restraining orders for a limited time and not forever.
Mr. Justice Baayeh said the ex-parte motion granted the applicant was generally off the mark and that they failed to move for the extension of the restraining orders against the respondents.
The contempt of court applicant brought against Westec and its Chief Executive came about following a supposed invasion of the offices of KTL.
Mr Devine Letsa, counsel for Kasapa Telecom Limited, in his application to the court argued that there was an interim injunction ordered by an Accra Circuit Court in 2001 against the respondents from interfering in the activities of the company.
Mr. Letsa said the actions of the respondents amounted to disobedience of the direct orders of the circuit court, given that over eight years ago, the respondents invaded the Abelenkpe and the Airport offices of Kasapa Limited.
He further indicated that since the suit was still before the Circuit Court and not struck out or withdrawn, it was, by law, valid.
Mr. Letsa noted that the fact that the motion had been filed to extend the interim injunction within 30 days of the initial injunction preserved the restraining order already given by the court.
He said the absence of the pendency of the court process was immaterial, adding that the respondents could not have been at Kasapa’s premises for an innocent purpose but intentionally to interfere in the court process.
Mr Eric Agbolosu, counsel for the respondents, in his affidavit in opposition to the motion, argued that the applicant is by law required to establish a prima facie case against his clients for contempt of court.
He said since 2001, no notice had been served on his clients that the case was still pending before the court, adding that by law at most a year’s notice should have been served by the applicant to the respondents of the pendency of the case.
Mr. Agbolosu also argued that the ex-parte application should not remain in force for more than 10 days, stressing that by law after 30 days, if the interim injunction was not extended then the restraining order fails to exist in law.
Popular stories from Courts and Crime
